path_arcto

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'adds' an arc but doesn't clarify if this modifies an existing path object, requires a path to be active, what happens if no path exists, or any performance/error considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language, though it could benefit from being more specific about the arc's mathematical properties.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a path manipulation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'current path', how the arc integrates, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The context demands more completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions of each. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('현재 패스에 호(arc)를 추가합니다' - 'adds an arc to the current path') which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'draw_path' or 'path_curveto' which also modify paths, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draw_path' or 'path_curveto'. The description only states what it does without any context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.